I'm glad we have Bush as President, and not Gore -- and I think it's safe to say his religion is not pretended like the Clintons' was. He seems to at least want to do what's right, most of the time.
However, it is disappointing -- to say the least -- that he wavered on the stem cell issue. He came close to doing the right thing, but in the end he tried too hard to please both sides. All Keyes has done is pointed out the inconsistencies in Bush's decision. That's where Keyes' criticism lies.
It's unfortunate that some have misunderstood this criticism to be a personal attack against Bush. But no matter what is said, it's just not true that Keyes ever bashed Bush. He has simply criticized him for waffling on the stem cell issue.
If you are pro-life, I hope you can understand the importance of this issue to Keyes. And I hope you realize it is something that we must defend at all times, even when we have a pro-life Republican in the White House. I’m sure if all pro-lifers had been firm in their pleas to Bush to not fund any stem cell research, it would’ve been easier for him to uphold it with no exceptions. But the pressure he got from the pro-life crowd to fund the research was apparently too great to ignore, and he obliged them.
We pro-lifers need to be firmer than that. Thank goodness we have Keyes to prick our consciences now and then.
With all due respect, I don't believe this is true. I've seen and heard plenty of Alan Keyes - and he is by no stretch of the imagination a Bush supporter. All I am suggesting is that there is no reason why his competitive, condescending behavior should earn him a seat at the Bush conference table.
For the most part, I have no problem with him - although I think he is completely unelectable, divisive, and at times comes dangerously close to the Windbag Zone - I actually do enjoy him in certain contexts. Having said that, I believe Bush is absolutely right to ignore him.
Thanks for the reasoned response. I appreciate your disagreeing without insulting me personally.